asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will examine the remuneration and tax-free allowances payable to Foreign Office employees in the light of the remuneration available in the private sector.

The pay is the same as that of equivalent grades in the Home Civil Service and is adjusted in the same way. It is set by comparison with what is paid outside for comparable work. Allowances are kept under constant review in the light of all the relevant circumstances, including the economic situation in this country.

May I thank the Minister for the information he has already given me and assure him that nobody on this side wishes to conduct a witch hunt against the Foreign Office? However, he said the allowances were comparable to those in private industry. Will he therefore explain why, for tax purposes, they are treated differently from similar allowances in private industry? Is he aware that a senior diplomat—with a salary of £15,000 a year—who has four children can receive education allowances adding to his gross salary the equivalent of another £20,000 a year? Does he not agree that this puts these people in a totally unreal world, insulated from the economic pressures affecting the rest of the community?

Overseas allowances are tax-free because they represent a compensation for the extra cost of having to live abroad and are covered by Section 369 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. I am sure hon. Members recognise that the education of children of members of the diplomatic service raises special problems. Diplomats spend most of their working lives in the service overseas and it is essential that there should be some continuity of education for their children. It is recognised that the State system does not provide much opportunity for boarding education.

Desirable as it is to have vigilance in these matters in Government Departments, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the tax avoidance industry is thriving, especially in the private sector and among many people to whose businesses the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) gives diligent attention, including the fringe banks he was on about on television the other night? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to be vigilant on these matters, but that we should not make it appear that we are gunning particularly for civil servants?

I am not conducting a witch hunt on either side of the House, but my hon. Friend has a point. There is very careful checking of expenses and allowances in the diplomatic service and, since we have a system of inspections and accounting, both sides of the House should recognise that the danger of avoidance is absolutely minimised.

This is a difficult situation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have a diplomatic service of which we are entitled to be proud, and that I think it is still the best in the world? When the present arrangements were made they were fully justified, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in comparable posts in business and the professions feel that in changing circumstances, because of inflation and tax rates, they are facing difficulties and hardships that are not necessarily being faced by some members of the diplomatic service, who have this insulation against the changing world? There is that difference between the diplomatic service and the world outside. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter in that spirit?

Yes, I shall consider this problem. I said in my original answer that we were looking at the question of reducing allowances, though not beyond the bounds of reason. The service must still properly fulfil its tasks abroad, in the country's interests, especially with export promotion, the collection of information and the rest of its responsibilities. We are examining carefully ways in which reductions in expenditure can be made, because of the present economic situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to facilitate a settlement of the Rhodesian constitutional problem with a view towards enabling the British Government to recognise Rhodesia as an independent State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the rôle to be played by Her Majesty's Government in helping to secure a settlement of the constitutional problem in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made by the Minister of State in his recent discussions on Rhodesia in Zambia; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on the most recent discussions between the United Kingdom Government and representatives of the people of Rhodesia.

I visited Zambia and Tanzania from 4th to 8th December for talks with the leaders of those countries on Southern African questions, and with leaders of the Rhodesian nationalist movement on Rhodesia.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the British Government recognise Mr. Nkomo as being the main spokesman of African opinion in Rhodesia? Have they stressed to Mr. Nkomo and the Rhodesian authorities that any successful outcome of the present negotiations will have to be agreed and ratified by the British Government and Parliament before the legal independence of Rhodesia can be recognised?

On the first part of the question, I have made clear in this House before that it is not for Her Majesty's Government to choose who should be representative of the African nationalist interests. In the course of my visit, I had discussions not only with Mr. Nkomo but with Bishop Muzorewa and the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole, and we have not sought to put an imprint upon one or the other.

What steps are being taken to concert United Kingdom policy with the policy of the Organisation of African Unity, especially Tanzania and Zambia? Is it still Government policy that there should be no independence before majority rule? What steps are being taken to prevent the continued hanging of African political prisoners?

One of the principal purposes of my visit was to have discussions with President Kaunda and President Nyerere in order that we could keep each other well informed and act together in so far as that is possible. As for the OAU, after my return I took the opportunity of sending a message to the organisation's chairman in order that he could know something of the discussions.

Bearing in mind the ultimate responsibility of this House, is it not important that the Government should have some means of keeping themselves informed about the progress of the current talks? What means do they have?

We are keeping in touch with those who are participating in the discussions. It would be very difficult and, I think, unwise for us to have a representative there. We have not been asked by either side to be involved in the negotiations. There is a danger that if we were to send a representative to Salisbury it would in some way be taken as a form of diplomatic recognition. That would be quite wrong in the case of the illegal régime. We are finding ways of keeping ourselves posted on the developments.

The only man who can move events in the short term is Mr. Smith, and the only man who can move Mr. Smith in the short term is Mr. Voster. What are the Government doing in this respect to secure some understanding with South Africa in the matter?

We are, of course, in touch with the South African Government on this question. I agree with my hon. Friend that much depends on the influence of the South African Government upon Mr. Smith. But I do not think that this is the only form of influence upon him. He must by now be aware that if he does not take this opportunity of negotiating a just and peaceful settlement it seems inevitable that there will be armed conflict. It is important that those in Rhodesia should recognise that time is running out and that if there are no major concessions now they will be facing a situation that is disastrous not only for the African people but for the Europeans in Rhodesia, too.

Further to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), is it not extremely important at this stage for the British Government to be kept continually apprised of the rapidly changing situation in Rhodesia? In view of that, is it not essential to have some means of developing a regular flow of information from Rhodesia?

I have already dealt with that. There are considerable difficulties about this, and I spelled them out. The point that the hon. Member raised will be borne in mind. It is important to keep informed. At present we are satisfied that we are well informed about the progress of the talks.

I welcome the general tenor of my right hon. Friend's views, but will he enlarge a little more on the question of the interim Government? Am I to understand that any such interim Government would certainly have to be instituted before there was any question of the recognition of independence? If not, we would seem to be going back on the promise of no independence before majority rule.

My hon. Friend's view would gain wide acceptance in the House. However, it would be unwise at this stage to make a firm commitment before knowing the nature of the proposals that might result from the negotiations, if they make progress. It would therefore be best for the House to look at the proposals when they are submitted to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend shortly to become a signatory of the Haagen agreement relating to the abduction of minors.

I assume that the Question refers to the Hague Convention of 1961 concerning the protection of minors. A Working Party of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission is reviewing conflicts of jurisdiction concerning children. The question of signature of this Convention will be considered in the light of the Commission's views.

Is the Minister aware of the case of my constituent, Mrs. McCartney, whose five-year-old son was snatched by her estranged husband and removed from this country on the basis of a false passport declaration? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we were parties to this agreement the task of enlisting the co-operation of foreign police forces to locate and return such children would be very much easier? Since these cases are regrettably becoming more frequent, is it not time that such a move was expedited?

I make no judgments on the McCartney case this afternoon. The Convention to which the hon. Member referred was an attempt to reconcile two different principles in these matters, and the British Government have to look very carefully at the reconciliation of those principles to make sure that the application of the Convention in Britain would be in the best interests of British citizens and their children who might go abroad.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in London.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) on 7th November, officials from a number of countries have met in London to discuss common problems in the field of nuclear energy. The discussions were multilateral and confidential.—[Vol. 899, c. 370.]

Many hon. Members warmly welcome these discussions and appreciate the initiatives which appear to have been taken by the Government. I appreciate that the discussions are at a delicate stage, but will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government have considered the possibility of regional control for fuel processing—an idea that was much supported at the Geneva Conference, though not then supported by the nuclear weapon States, including ourselves?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remarks. In principle, I see a great deal of attraction in my hon. Friend's suggestion about regional control, but there are a number of technical problems which must be examined with care. Nevertheless, we agree on the principle.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the dangers of exporting plutonium from Windscale to Japan and four other countries? Will he bear in mind that officials at Windscale say that this is not essential to the carrying on of normal activities there?

There is a substantial case to be made out for ensuring that those countries with nuclear capabilities enable those capabilities to be used for wholly peaceful purposes, as long as there is a satisfactory system of safeguards to make sure that they are limited to those purposes. That must be the policy of those countries which already have nuclear capabilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the recent declaration of the Atlantic Treaty Association that the threat to Western security is increasing while perception of that threat is diminishing; and if he will refrain from making such cuts in Great Britain's contribution to the military strength of the Western Alliance in Europe and elsewhere as would leave his ability to influence NATO strategy and protect British interests in the world much reduced.

My NATO ministerial colleagues and I reaffirmed in Brussels last week our determination to maintain and improve the efficiency of our forces in the face of the steadily expanding power of the armed forces of the Warsaw Pact. The Government are firmly committed to maintaining an effective British contribution to NATO, which remains the first and overriding charge on our resources available for defence.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is concern and even anxiety in the United States and Western Europe about several aspects of British foreign policy, for example, import controls, which appear to contradict the spirit of Rambouillet; borrowing from the International Monetary Fund more than our share at the expense of less developed countries; and the prospect of cuts in defence against the background just described by the right hon. Gentleman? As the Foreign Secretary has a special responsibility within the Cabinet for the position of the United Kingdom in the world, will he give his personal undertaking to resist any cuts in British defence that would put at risk our influence within NATO and to do his utmost to ensure that our relations with the United States and Western Europe remain sound and solid in these difficult days?

During the past few days I have had the opportunity of discussions with the United States Secretary of State, both in Paris, yesterday, and in Brussels, last Friday. I do not think that he would wholly recognise the description that the hon. Gentleman employed. As to the future of our defence—which is what the Question relates to—I do not give personal assurances on that matter. Of course not. These are collective decisions. They will be collectively taken, collectively advocated and collectively defended.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our contribution to NATO as a percentage of our gross national product is massively higher than those of other contributors? Does he further agree that we could massively cut our defence contribution to bring it into line with that of other members of NATO?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that our expenditure, as a proportion of gross domestic product, is still higher than that of some of our NATO allies. [Interruption.] I am answering my hon. Friend's supplementary question, not sedentary interruptions. There is, therefore, no reason why we should be ashamed of our contribution to NATO. We are paying more, as a proportion of GDP. But that is not the only measure. Measured in terms of total expenditure, we are not ahead of other nations. Some nations in NATO are ahead of us. I am sorry that I part company with my hon. Friend in replying to the second part of his supplementary question. Massive cuts would not support the present processes of multilateral disarmament upon which we are embarking, nor would they represent the proper contribution that this country should make, and they could increase the dangers in Central Europe. I ask my hon. Friends to reflect on that last point.

If I heard the Foreign Secretary aright, he said that he and his colleagues committed themselves to improving the efficiency of their defence forces. May we take it that any decisions made by the Government on defence expenditure are based on the principle that they will improve the efficiency of our defence forces?

The first part of my answer referred to the collective decision of all the NATO countries. There is a common determination to maintain and improve the NATO forces, and we shall take our part in that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO has more men under arms and more tactical weapons than have the Warsaw Pact countries? Therefore, should not we implement Labour Party policy to reduce the proportion of our GNP spent on defence to the proportion spent by our allies? Does my right hon. Friend agree that in our present economic position we can no longer afford to prop up the myth that the Eastern bloc is ready to catch a train to come over to conquer us?

I have not the figures with me, and that supplementary question should probably be asked of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I doubt whether my hon. Friend's comparison is accurate, but I should like to check it. The proposals that were put to the Warsaw Pact countries yesterday are designed to achieve a common ceiling in manpower, and a common ceiling in manpower is reckoned to be to the advantage of Western Europe, because Eastern Europe has more men under arms. In exchange, certain other changes would be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans for the ratification of the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights.

Our signature of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights indicates an intention to ratify in due course, but I am unable to give a date at present.

Will my right hon. Friend say why we were able to accept extensive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, whereas nine years have elapsed without ratification of the United Nations covenants, which place upon us obligations which are no more extensive and whose machinery for enforcement is less precise? Given the number of countries that have ratified those covenants, are we not dragging our feet?

There are two covenants, and they are more widely embracing than are the European equivalents. A major reason for the delay in ratification is that acceptance of the United Nations covenants ties us to our dependent territories. Work has to be done in assessing to what extent the legislation of the dependent territories brings them into line, so that the United Kingdom Government can accept the covenants.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he is taking over the Cyprus problem.

I discussed the Cyprus problem at length with the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers in the margin of the NATO Council meeting in Brussels last week, and also had talks with the American Secretary of State. In the course of these discussions certain proposals were agreed as a basis for the resumption of intercommunal talks between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash. These talks will begin again in the new year and I am sure the House will wish them success.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his valuable work on Cyprus. Is he aware that many of us believe that unless the British Government take a new initiative in the new year a lasting peaceful solution to the Cyprus question will not be achieved?

I know my hon. Friend's view. This matter is kept constantly under review. I adhere to my view—and there is no disposition to quarrel with it among those who examined the problem—that the best progress will be achieved between the leaders of the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community, with Dr. Waldheim also in attendance at the discussions. I believe that starting on that basis is the best way to achieve a lasting peace.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that a number of British citizens have suffered confiscation of their property and personal belongings, and considerable financial hardship? What steps has he taken to alleviate that hardship? Will he consider claims for compensation?

I am very much aware of it, and I wish that I could have done more. I regard this as one of the areas in which we have not been very successful. But we are continuing our efforts to persuade those whom we hold responsible for British losses in Cyprus—that is, the Government of Turkey and, to a lesser extent, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus—to institute compensation procedures. However, so far we have not been successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.

I visited the area from 22nd to 30th November. I had wide-ranging talks with the Heads of State—except Sheikh Zaid of the UAE who was indisposed—and senior Ministers in each country, on political and economic questions, both bilateral and multilateral. I found abundant evidence of good will towards Britain and of the enormous potential for British exports. I am anxious that both Government and industry should exploit these openings to the full.

Is the Secretary of State aware that British exporters, who, as he rightly says, have such tremendous opportunities in this area, are to some extent unable to capitalise on the good will engendered by the Government's diplomatic initiatives, because of certain special problems relating to performance bonds? In particular, does he realise that in Saudi Arabia many of the contracts awarded are in the range of £100 million and over, and that, because of this, many medium and even large British companies are finding difficulty in providing the essential 10 per cent. performance bond guarantees required to make them participate in those contracts? Since this is a week in which the Government are being generous in providing bank guarantees to American lame ducks in this country, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he could do something, perhaps through ECGD, to be helpful in providing bank guarantee arrangements to successful British companies exporting to the Middle East?

I noted what the hon. Gentleman said in the debate on foreign affairs. When I went on my visit I took with me for the first time representatives of British industry as part of my official party. There seemed to be a lot to be said for that, and I think that it had some value. As for the financial aspect, that came up a number of times. The Joint Commission that has been established between Britain and Saudi Arabia will have its first meeting in January. This matter may be considered then. But in any case I shall draw what the hon. Gentleman says to the attention of the Secretary of State for Trade.

Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me that many hon. Members on the Government side—and, of course, none on the other side—are deeply disturbed at the secondment of troops, amounting to their use as mercenaries, to the Omani Republic, that many of us regard this as a defence of feudalism against progressive forces, and that we deplore it and hope that it will never happen again?

It is true that for some years British Service men, on contract or otherwise, have been assisting the Sultan of Oman and his forces, but I feel that the invasion that has taken place and the support that the rebel forces have received from neighbouring States would hardly qualify for my hon. Friend's description. But what is important—I had a long conversation with the Sultan about this—is that, now that the rebellion seems to be pretty well over, the Sultan of Oman should proceed with a number of schemes for housing, education and social welfare. I understand from him that it is his policy to do so, and it will certainly be with the encouragement of Her Majesty's Government.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the Arab world, perhaps more than anywhere else, it is important to have frequent high-level ministerial visits and extremely undesirable for those visits to be cancelled at short notice? Does he also agree that in the Gulf there is a great deal of good will towards Britain, but that that good will does not extend to the Gulf States leaving their money in London with the exchange rate of the pound depreciating at the rate that it has done over the last year and that if it continues to depreciate at that rate we cannot expect them to continue to leave their money here and bail us out?

On the first point, I found that there was a great desire for high-level visits from business men from this country, rather than leaving the transaction of business to legal agents and representatives. I hope that firms can do this. If the hon. Gentleman's remark about the cancellation of high-level visits was a snide reference to the Prime Minister's proposed visit, he might have the courage to say so—but in any case that has not been cancelled; it has been postponed for two or three months. Sheikh Yamani and I had a conversation about this yesterday. The hon. Gentleman's anxieties can be totally relieved.

But they are not buying.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Irish relations.

Anglo-Irish relations have stood up well to the strains imposed by recent terrorist activities on both sides of the Irish Sea. We are continuing to develop our already close co-operation with the Irish Government on matters of mutual interest.

Accepting that cross-border co-operation has improved in recent years, and bearing in mind that the border lies between two friendly countries, both members of the EEC and both dedicated to the destruction of the IRA, is it not nevertheless true that the level of co-operation is far from satisfactory, particularly in military matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman, after consultation with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, continue vigorously to press the Dublin Government on this matter?

On military co-operation and the effects on the Northern Ireland situation, the hon. Member must put down Questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But I have no doubt that the Government of the Republic of Ireland share our desire to stamp out terrorism on both sides of the border and are co-operating to the best of their ability to bring that about.

Will my right hon. Friend resist with every fibre of his being the hysterical attempts by some people to drive a wedge between the Irish people and the British people and to castigate and put into a third-class category Irish citizens, of whom the vast majority have nothing to do with terrorism?

Perhaps before I answer I should declare an interest, in that I represent thousands of Irish citizens in the constituency of Birmingham, Sparkbrook, and am very proud to do so. I confirm what my hon. Friend said. Most citizens of Ireland who have come to Britain to live and work deplore the outrages of the recent past as strongly as we do. That cannot be said too often.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Eire Government could make a sensible contribution to Anglo-Irish relations by withdrawing its case against the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice?

We have always taken the view that the Irish State case, as it is called, is appropriate for a friendly settlement rather than its pursuit to the last iota of legal examination—but I understand some of the pressures exerted on the Irish Government in this matter. I disagree with the position that they have taken up, but it should not prejudice our general view of the desirability and the hopes that that Government have of co-operating with us in all these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken at high commissions in the Indian sub-continent to shorten delays in interviewing applicants for entry certificates.

Immigration staffs in the sub-continent have been increased and special simplified procedures have been introduced for the more expeditious processing of certain categories of applications.

Will my hon. Friend ponder very seriously on that reply and think deeply about the social consequences of the effects on married life when married couples are separated for 18 months or two years—a separation that threatens the continuity of the marriage? Will he consider the possibility of a scheme being applied in both Delhi and Bombay, such as apparently applies in Islamabad—that is, that with six months' notice on this side of such applications by a couple they can come back to this country together if they choose to be domiciled here? Otherwise, with the present Home Office regulations under the 1971 Immigration Act, my hon. Friend is in danger of going down in history as the match-breaker and not the match-maker.

As a Welsh romantic, I should not like to be dubbed a match-breaker. I certainly contemplate the social considerations every day. I sign 150 letters a month to Members of Parliament on the problems of immigration, many of them involving separation. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point. We are doing our best. The process of applications has been accelerated, but I am afraid that the number of applications is also rising.

How many relatives are still to come? Will this list be wiped out in due course, or will husbands here constantly renew the numbers in the queue?

There are widely varying estimates of the figures. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will be able to give the most accurate assessment. In many cases we are still processing applications, and we shall do that as speedily as possible. I appreciate the social consequences, but within the immigration rules we are doing everything that is administratively possible to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to visit Australasia.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit Australia or New Zealand.

Will the Minister persuade his right hon. Friend to change his mind, so that in view of the recent major change of political direction in both those countries he may gain a little from their experience? In particular, is there not a case for wide-ranging discussions between Britain and the new Governments of Australia and New Zealand on such matters as trade and security in the Pacific basin, following Communist successes in Vietnam?

I am sure that there is a case for wide-ranging discussions, but my right hon. Friend has no plans for a visit at present. The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed, but there is little correlation between what happens in politics in Australia and New Zealand and what happens in Britain.

In view of the quite devastating repudiation of Socialism by the predominantly British people of Australia and New Zealand, will the hon. Gentleman rescue his colleagues in the Foreign Office and in the Ministry of Defence from one particular dilemma—namely, that they are still replying to letters from hon. Members of this House as late as Monday of this week by saying that Her Majesty's Government support Mr. Whitlam's policy for the neutralisation of the Indian Ocean? As this is not the view of the new Government of Australia, will the hon. Gentleman persuade his colleagues to think again and to write more accurate letters to hon. Members?

We still suppport Mr. Whitlam's view concerning the Indian Ocean.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings he gave at the last meeting of the European Council on preparations in the United Kingdom for direct elections to the European Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he now proposes to secure direct elections in the United Kingdom to the European Parliament, following the agreement among the EEC Heads of Government in Rome.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations and plans will now be made by Her Majesty's Government to meet the European Council's target of 1978 for direct elections to the European Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Members to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made on 4th December.—[Vol. 901, c. 1932.]

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that he now has an opportunity to repair some of the consequences of the disastrous blunders that he made in his dealings with our European partners and that there is here an opportunity for the United Kingdom Government to show themselves as good Europeans and adult members of the Community at no cost in votes, and thereby to gain a good reputation? The Foreign Secretary should be aware that he will not lose his seat if he takes this further step. Will he indicate whether there has been further progress?

The term "good European" should be used with great care. I do not regard as good Europeans those who put forward impossible pledges that are incapable of being carried out within the time scale that is set. We have put our hands to this particular road and we shall follow it with due regard to the undertakings that we have given and with all regard to British interests in these matters.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the statement to which he referred the Prime Minister said that in principle the Government accepted the obligation of direct elections? Does he recall that at the last December summit the Prime Minister said that this matter must await the outcome of the then forthcoming referendum? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what has changed in respect of any obligation in the Treaty of Rome between last December and this December?

The referendum.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware that the last time I put a Question on this subject his right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave a reasonably helpful reply. Since then there has been the European Council meeting and the prospect that after 1978 British subjects will be second-class citizens in the European Community, in the sense that we shall be one of the few nations that are not represented by directly elected members of the European Parliament. Is the time not right for the Foreign Secretary or one of his colleagues to initiate pretty full discussions with all interested parties in this country to find out how to set about the task of directly electing our own representatives at Strasbourg?

I do not accept the charge that the people of this country will be second-class citizens, because it is for the House to decide whether we shall be able to secure direct elections by 1978. I have been trying to preserve the position of the House in this matter, with the result that in Brussels I am sometimes accused of dragging my feet and here I am sometimes accused of having given everything away. It is for the Government, in the light of the discussions that took place in Rome, to produce a series of questions, in the form of, perhaps, a Green Paper, to enter into discussions with the political parties, Transport House and Conservative Central Office and to have debates in this House. We are working on this now, and I hope that shortly after the House returns from the Christmas Recess it will be possible to publish such a paper. It will then be for the authorities of the House to decide how we debate it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government's reservations about the 1978 date are ones not of principle but of practicality? If that is so, will the Minister explain why it is that we are somehow less competent than, say, the people of Italy, Ireland or any other country of the Nine in achieving the target date of 1978?

I find that a little difficult to answer. I believe that some of my colleagues must have much more tractable and docile Parliaments with which to deal than we have. If the House wills it, we can achieve this by 1978—I have no doubt of that. The hon. Gentleman is quite right, this is a matter of practicality and not of principle. Perhaps I could speak wearing another hat, namely, as a former Home Secretary. I do not underrate the great difficulties of setting this machinery going, and I advise the House not to underrate them. However, I shall not mind if the House says "Please hurry up. You are being too slow." That will not offend me, provided we go through the proper processes of consultation, decision and legislation.

Direct election to the European Parliament has a distinct aroma of federalism. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if such a question is raised the British Government will oppose completely any such proposal?—[Interruption.]

There seem to be countervailing cries of "Yes" and "No".

I meant federalism.

Yes, I heard my hon. Friend. There is no proposal for federalism now. If such a proposal should ever come forward, it would be for the House of the day to take a decision on such a matter. I do not know whether I shall still be here when the decision is taken.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Council of Ministers about the proposal to have direct elections to the European Parliament.

Following the European Council's request for a report that would enable the text of a Convention to be finalised at its next meeting, the Council of Ministers agreed on 9th December that the Committee of Permanent Representatives should continue examination of the problem.

While not myself approving of direct elections to this European Parliament, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Green Paper that he has said might be published will contain a pretty firm statement as to the powers that any European Parliament may have, if we ever have one? Secondly, will it contain a statement that these powers cannot be increased by the European Parliament itself without the consent of each national Parliament? Thirdly, will it contain a firm commitment that the European Parliament will not commit this country to proportional representation?

I have not yet submitted this proposed Green Paper to my colleagues, so I have no idea of the improvements that they will wish to make to it. I would not have expected to go into the question of the powers of the European Parliament and any increase in those powers, because this is concerned with the modalities of direct elections. I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I have no desire or intention of going over to the question of proportional representation, although I understand it is being considered in other quarters.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that in the Green Paper there will be a discussion of the option whether there should be a common day for elections for the European Parliament, or whether there is an argument for having elections on the same day as a General Election in Great Britain? With reference to the last question, will my right hon. Friend say a little more on the question whether or not you, Mr. Speaker, will preside over a committee that may discuss the question of proportional representation for these elections, or some other mechanism whereby consultation with the parties can take place?

I do not think that I have anything to add on the last part of the question. However, on the first part, certainly the Green Paper must put forward views on the question of a single election date or a number of them. But this is one of the very few questions that will probably have to be decided, inevitably, by its very nature, by the Council of Ministers, because it will affect all nine member States, whereas the question of the modalities of the election—what kind of constituencies we have; how we run it, who can be nominated, and all the rest of it—is clearly a matter for the House to determine in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet representatives of the EEC.

The next meeting of the Council of Ministers (Foreign Affairs) will be held on 19th and 20th January.

At the first available opportunity will my right hon. Friend tell his friends in the Common Market that an increasing number of the unemployed people in this country who voted "Yes" are becoming increasingly angry over the referendum propaganda about "jobs for the boys"? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that a multinational community such as the Common Market stopped its pussyfooting attitude towards multinational companies and, instead, brought some collective pressure to bear on multinational companies to make them face their social responsibility to provide more jobs, especially in view of the Chrysler fiasco?

I am sure that my hon. Friend and I agree about the tragedy of increasing unemployment and the regrettable nature of the increases that have taken place. For my part, I have no doubt that if Britain had voted to withdraw from the Economic Community unemployment in this country would have been a great deal higher than it is now.

When the right hon. Gentleman does next go to Brussels and meet representatives, will he inquire whether or not the negotiations concluded with Chrysler fall within the provisions of our treaty commitments, not least on account of the very authoritative comment that appears in today's edition of the Financial Times, which suggests that they may well constitute a form of concealed subsidy and, therefore, fall without our treaty obligations?

I have often told the hon. Gentleman and others who think like him that the EEC is a much more flexible organisation than some people give it credit for. I have no doubt that in the special circumstances attendant on the Chrysler declaration and the Chrysler decision, the Community will understand the need for the British Government to do what they have done.

Is it not true, however, that Norway took a decision to keep out of the Common Market and that as a result of that decision the Norwegians are now managing to weather the capitalist economic storm much better than we are, particularly in regard to unemployment?

It is certainly true that Norway decided to keep out of the Common Market. It is not true that that contributed to Norway's increased prosperity. There are some of us who may think that the fact that Norway got its oil ashore five years earlier than Great Britain made some contribution to its prosperity.

Bearing in mind that the referendum is now behind us and these matters are really of the past, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there brave been no fewer than eight, or possibly nine, meetings of the Council of Ministers in Europe this month, some of them of considerable importance, but there has been no statement to this House on the subject? The Opposition would not ask that in every case statements should be made, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend that occasions should be taken to inform this House more frequently than has been the case of what Ministers are actually doing in our name in Brussels.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. However, the hon. Gentleman will recall that when we last had a statement on these matters there was some criticism about its value in the House. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will recall—because he was not here—that on the last occasion on which we debated European matters the debate collapsed after 45 minutes because there were not sufficient Members in the House to keep it going.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions he has specifically addressed the Council of Ministers on the problems of Wales.

I have spoken for the interests of Wales in the Council of Ministers and have also corresponded about them whenever they were relevant to the questions under discussion. I have done the same for all other parts of the United Kingdom.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there were 54 meetings of the Council of Ministers in the year up to the end of October but no Welsh Office representative attended any one of them, although there were representatives from the Scottish Office in attendance? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore clarify the situation and confirm that there is a right and a principle, at least, for the Welsh Office to be represented at these meetings? Will he also make sure that in future, when the Council of Ministers discusses subjects such as agriculture, transport, or regional policies, where there is a direct Welsh Office interest in these matters, a Minister from the Welsh Office is invited to go along with him to these meetings?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was present at nearly all of the meetings to which he has referred. Whether they were to discuss regional funds, development area status—including its extension to parts of Wales—the future of steel or the question of farming, on all these matters the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was there, and was speaking. If my right hon. and learned Friend from the Welsh Office would like to accompany me, he can come with pleasure whenever he wants to, as can the Secretary of State for Scotland. On the whole, however, they rather believe that the interests of Wales and Scotland are very well looked after at present.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is well known throughout Wales as being a very balanced Nationalist, in that he has a chip on both shoulders? My right hon. Friend has spoken up so often for the interests of Wales, in Brussels and elsewhere, that he is commonly known as "Jim the Trip". Is my right hon. Friend aware that in any case, with all the inadequacies of the EEC and the criticisms that many people in Wales and elsewhere have in relation to it, we are far more concerned with the power that is exercised by that body and the manner in which it is exercised than with the paraphernalia and the machinery of Government and the question whether the appropriate Under-Secretary from the Welsh Office happens to be at the meetings?

Yes, Sir. I should like to make clear that these issues, whether they are concerned with the problems of Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland—or, indeed, any other area—are always cleared either by way of correspondence between Ministers or meetings between Ministers before meetings take place in Brussels. I hope that I can claim that I am extremely scrupulous, for obvious reasons. After all, I care about the regions. I come from one of them. [An hon. Member: "Regions?"] Of course. There is no obscenity in using the word "region". I want to make it clear to the House that I regard it as my first responsibility to ensure that the welfare of the people concerned is taken fully into account in the discussions that we have.